Gay Patriot Header Image

Every Child a Healthy and Wanted Child

Posted by V the K at 2:01 pm - February 24, 2014.
Filed under: Pro-Life and Pro-Gay

A woman’s convenience must trump every other consideration. There should be no consequences to sexual promiscuity. If it means terminating some healthy, viable babies along the way… so much the better.

That is precisely the position advocated by the Pro-Choice Left.

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.



  1. While I am not as pro life as the author of this blog, how about if women and men used a condom? It’s inexpensive, close to foolproof, and would eliminate many of the abortions. And if the men say no to rubbers, then give them the thumbs down to any sex.

    Comment by davinci — February 24, 2014 @ 2:25 pm - February 24, 2014

  2. davinci, that approach would require men and women to behave like responsible adults… and as such, is unnacceptable to the left.

    Comment by V the K — February 24, 2014 @ 2:36 pm - February 24, 2014

  3. I’ve even suggested that women refrain from sex if having a child might ‘inconvenience’ them. Btw, with every passing day I become more against abortion. People like this idiot – who is just parroting South Park (in that case it was a nine year late abortion of Cartman) are pushing me over the edge.

    Comment by Leah — February 24, 2014 @ 2:38 pm - February 24, 2014

  4. There is nothing more precious as the life of a God given child. And, everytime I see someone on the left or right attempt to justify abortion, I shudder. The only thing that angers me more is people who conflate that if you are for gay rights, you must be for abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, now some are making a case for after birth abortions? Are these people without any morals whatsoever?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — February 24, 2014 @ 2:42 pm - February 24, 2014

  5. Men no longer have any rights in the decision on whether they can have children. All the cards are in the hands of the woman. And, the true anti-gay crowd says claims gheys are a narcissistic and will be the downfall of civilization. All I can say is that I try to be the best uncle that I can to all nine of my nephews and nieces and be there for them when they need help of any kind.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — February 24, 2014 @ 3:07 pm - February 24, 2014

  6. Is the OP pretending that two philosophers’ opinion is somehow the same opinion as the “pro-choice Left”? The article you link to clearly explains who said this, and you simply pretend every pro-choice person has the same opinion? Many of them? Most of them? Some? Where’s the proof for this “they all think that way”?

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 24, 2014 @ 3:17 pm - February 24, 2014

  7. Kinda puts the lie to the “Pro family, pro child, pro choice” mantra, doesn’t it.

    You know, I think that the insanity displayed by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva would justify abortion of them, if it had been known at the time, so, let’s just do a after-birth abortion on them. How about that?

    These pro-abortion advocates always forget what Charles Dickens said: “Take care when you speak of the surplus population, for it may be in the grand scheme of things that you are more expendable then one such as these.”

    Comment by Craig Smith — February 24, 2014 @ 3:18 pm - February 24, 2014

  8. @#6:
    It’s their very own logic and expectations. That presumption is completely in line with the Lefty Code of if you are on the Left and support gay rights, then you must by definition be pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-teacher, anti-choice (in anything except uterine-usage), anti-church, pro- tweed jacket, anti-SUV, pro-tree-hugging, squirrel-fkcuing, dirt-worshippers.
    And if you’re not, then OBVIOUSLY you failed your own abortion.

    Comment by Rodney — February 24, 2014 @ 3:30 pm - February 24, 2014

  9. Where’s the proof for this “they all think that way”?

    Do they all think it’s okay to terminate a child if it’s an inconvenience to the mother? Yes, they do. That’s what “pro-choice” means.

    Comment by V the K — February 24, 2014 @ 3:36 pm - February 24, 2014

  10. Both Adolf Hitler and Margaret Sanger would be so proud of the Libtard Left today.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 24, 2014 @ 4:47 pm - February 24, 2014

  11. But what’s being advocated here isn’t abortion. In the context of pregnancy, to abort is to terminate, to bring to a premature end (although the term ‘premature’ is itself a hornet’s nest). What the author of this statement is attempting to do is to change the language in order to mask the horrific nature, the evil that is infanticide. If those who have even the slightest bit of pro-life-ness in them can agree to anything, it should at the very least be that after birth, the mother is no longer inconvenienced such that the “justification” for abortion (that the pro-choice movement has attempted to make since its conception) is the woman’s right to choose to kill, i.e. what is in the womb is hers and hers alone. Thus, any killing after birth — whether induced or natural, to term or premature — is murder. I see several commenters have objected to the pro-choice blockquote but have accepted the terms of its author by using the term “abortion” as a basis of their objection. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION. It is about murdering a baby that is outside the mother. Do not allow the left to change the language to make Kermit Gosnell more palatable.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 24, 2014 @ 5:41 pm - February 24, 2014

  12. I think there are some pro choice people that would be horrified at this suggestion, and as a pro lifer I absolutely think it is horrifying.

    A baby in the womb is always a baby (and science proves this)-and the at the very least it deserves some level of protection especially in the latter half of a pregnancy.

    Abortion isn’t really much different than cultures that allowed for the exposure of unwanted children-the left won’t agree with this but in the end is there much difference between ripping a baby out of the womb and leaving it to die?

    Comment by Just Me — February 24, 2014 @ 6:33 pm - February 24, 2014

  13. Hallelujah!!!!

    Finally, the Pro-Choice Left is being openly logical and consistent.

    A pest is a pest is a pest whether riding along inside the womb or making a woman miserable after birth. Kill the damn thing.

    Now we have to fix a cut off point on killing the critter. Anyone who has raised a young teen knows that homicide should be justifiable for 13 year olds. However, if the 13 year old is pregnant, ……..

    Comment by heliotrope — February 24, 2014 @ 7:49 pm - February 24, 2014

  14. Yet these same libtard hypocrites are against justifiable 4th term abortions: death penalty for evil, convicted murderers. Go figure.

    Comment by runningrn — February 24, 2014 @ 8:48 pm - February 24, 2014

  15. How long would that last? Could I do away with my 30 year old daughter if she ticks me off some day?

    Comment by John — February 24, 2014 @ 11:01 pm - February 24, 2014

  16. At least the guy who wrote the article realizes how fundamentally evil the idea is, and how problematic it is for pro-abortionists. While it’s true that killing infants and unborn is nothing new- Spartans practiced infanticide by exposure, and the Christian epistles contain references to abortifacient beverages, euphemistically referred to as “potions”- the callousness with which it is performed is a whole new form of twisted. You either left the baby to die somewhere, or drank a potion when you were in the first trimester. You didn’t rip it limb from limb in the womb, or sever its spinal chord moments after birth.

    Sometimes I wonder if the species’ soul died in the gas chambers, and in the ruins of Dresden and Nagasaki. It wouldn’t surprise me if it did.

    Comment by Sean — February 24, 2014 @ 11:14 pm - February 24, 2014

  17. These philosophers are absolutely right. There is no moral difference between a late term abortion and killing a baby. A baby isn’t much more of a person; its brainpower doesn’t increase significantly simply because of the process of being born. Its sensory organs might possibly become more active (I’m not sure how active they are in the fetus) but I don’t see how that is significant enough to suddenly grant it personhood.

    Of course, if you have any sense at all, you will recognize a baby as a person. Just because babies don’t have the capacity to make rational decisions doesn’t make them any less of people; all adults used to be babies, and thus had (generally) the potential to eventually make rational decisions. It violates the baby’s right to life to make such a decision for it before it has the mental capacity to make the decision for itself (and the potential of that mental capacity is also key here). Ergo, late term abortions are equivalent to murder. And, by the same logic, I would argue that any abortion is equivalent to murder (human zygotes are biologically distinct humans with human DNA, and have the potential to eventually be fully rational humans).

    What these philosophers are saying is reprehensible, but it is no more reprehensible than what the typical pro-choice person says, and they are at least logically consistent.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 25, 2014 @ 12:12 am - February 25, 2014

  18. I wonder if the species’ soul died…in the ruins of Dresden and Nagasaki.

    Righteous and completely justifiable acts during a war against the Nazis and Imperial Japan are in no way comparable to the gas chambers in the concentration camps.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 25, 2014 @ 12:20 am - February 25, 2014

  19. Even if you want to argue that Dresden was a valid military target, the use of firebombs should raise some eyebrows. Conventional bombs would have survived for an attack on the military and industrial infrastructure. What possible purpose could the use of firebombs have served except the destruction of civilian life?

    We can argue whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acceptable. I personally think that they were; the deaths that occurred from their use were far fewer than the deaths that would have occurred from a military invasion of the main islands. But you have to admit that there is something disturbing about those bombings.

    Comment by Sean — February 25, 2014 @ 6:50 am - February 25, 2014

  20. But you have to admit that there is something disturbing about those bombings.

    Yes, that’s true.

    But not as disturbing as the Japanese being so committed to conquest that it took the deployment of not one, but two atomic bombs before they surrendered.

    WRT Dresden: this wasn’t an unwilling populace being cowed into conflict by a maniacal regime. They were, as you pointed out, a nation that employed the systematic use of slavery in concentration camps and mass executions in gas chambers.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 25, 2014 @ 8:15 am - February 25, 2014

  21. So the citizens of a country are responsible for the crimes of the leaders? How many German citizens outside of the High Command, the Wehrmacht and SS forces who policed the camps, the camp staff, and probably the populations of the towns that housed the camp staff, knew what was happening in those camps?

    If you want to play that game, just about every country in Europe had a hand in the Holocaust, whether it was people who actively participated in it, or who knew what was happening and shut their doors on the people trying to escape. Like we did.

    And Eisenhower (you know, the general-turned-president?) believed that the second bomb was overkill.

    Comment by Sean — February 25, 2014 @ 9:01 am - February 25, 2014

  22. The strategy of firebombs in Japan and the destruction of Dresden had the purpose of awakening the civilian population to the impending doom coming to the homeland.

    Japan was largely a vast wooden ghetto. Fire was its greatest and constant concern. The firebombing was meant to break the will to fight for every last square inch of homeland against the foreign devils. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki made it crystal clear that highly organized bucket brigades were insufficient to the task of fending off fire.

    When you visit ground zero in Hiroshima, you will find millions of origami peace birds everywhere. The people readily speak out about how the country was saved by forcing them to wake up to reality and surrender.

    Dresden was in part retribution, but it was also a clarion call to Germany that the city in the area of Germany which was believed to be safe from bombing because it lay beyond reach was, in fact, very vulnerable. The impact of Dresden on the German populace was profound.

    In both Germany and Japan, when occupation followed surrender, the armed and troublesome opposition was minor to nil. The people engaged in their revival and reconstruction instead of continuing a lost cause.

    Certainly the bombings stirred an ethical dilemma for the ages, but no more of a dilemma than countless other acts of war undertaken through the millennia in the pursuit of conquering an enemy army and subduing the people.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2014 @ 9:17 am - February 25, 2014

  23. If you want to play that game…

    What game is that?

    This started when you cast the gas chambers/concentration camps in Germany and Poland with the Dresden and Nagasaki (and Hiroshima, I assume) bombings.
    I pointed out that they were not equivalent.
    You didn’t seem to have any problem with that, and I further agreed that these events were, as you stated, disturbing.

    So Eisenhower Nagasaki bomb was overkill. Fine.
    I imagine there were just as many generals in the US Armed Forces who thought it was justifiable.
    And that brings us to……where, exactly?

    I didn’t think you were saying that the United States committed war crimes equivalent to those of Japan and Germany.
    Or were you?

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 25, 2014 @ 9:59 am - February 25, 2014

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.